Critical minerals have moved to the centre of the global energy transition, industrial policy and, increasingly, economic security. Yet, although the geopolitical framing often emphasises competition and supply chain risks, a narrow focus on securitisation alone risks missing the larger picture: no group of countries, not even the G7 economies, can secure access to critical minerals on its own. Building on recent progress, the G7 needs to continue to advance the momentum generated under Canada’s 2025 G7 presidency, which placed critical minerals high on the agenda and initiated important discussions on supply chain coordination and sustainability.
G7 members have taken significant steps in recent years to secure access to critical minerals. National strategies in the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, Japan and others have expanded lists of critical materials, invested in domestic mining and processing, and supported supply diversification through bilateral partnerships. Encouragingly, many of these strategies have also started to recognise the role of recycling, resource efficiency and circularity, signalling a shift towards more systemic thinking.
Internationally, G7 members have launched a range of initiatives to secure supply chains and promote standards, including bilateral partnerships with resource-rich countries, and made efforts to align environmental and labour practices. These initiatives are important, but they often remain G7-centric in design and governance, with limited integration of broader producer and consumer countries. Also, current approaches remain overly focused on upstream supply security through investments in mining, refining and, more recently, stockpiling initiatives, rather than building resilient, circular value chains.
This is a critical gap. Minerals security is inherently global. Key producers, processors and future demand centres lie within the G20 and beyond. Without deeper engagement with these actors (particularly in Africa, Latin America and Southeast Asia), G7 strategies risk reinforcing fragmentation rather than resilience. Moreover, there is growing recognition that more effective frameworks on environmental protection, labour rights and value addition are needed and must be co-developed with partner countries, reflecting their development priorities and sovereignty concerns.
Circularity as a bridge for win–win partnerships
Circularity is often treated as a complementary measure rather than a core pillar of minerals security. This limits its potential. Recycling, refurbishment and remanufacturing could significantly reduce primary demand pressures, enhance supply resilience and create new industrial opportunities – particularly in emerging and developing economies. This is where circularity can play a transformative role. A shift towards circular mineral value chains – spanning design, reuse, recycling and secondary markets – offers a pathway to align security, sustainability and development objectives.
Circular approaches can:
Provide stable secondary supplies that reduce dependence on primary extraction, easing geopolitical competition over resources;
Create new industrial ecosystems, including recycling and remanufacturing hubs in emerging economies;
Support environmental and social goals, by lowering the footprint of mineral supply chains; and
Enable more balanced partnerships, where value is created and retained across regions.
Building on this, the 2026 Think 7 Task Force on Critical Mineral Value Chains has recommended the creation of a flagship circular critical minerals partnership – a dedicated platform for financing, standards setting and policy alignment. Such a partnership could operationalise the G7’s existing commitments under the Circular Economy and Resource Efficiency Principles, moving from recognition to implementation.
Towards a more inclusive global minerals regime
There remains a significant gap in global governance for not only critical minerals but resources and materials more broadly. For the G7 the key challenge is to move beyond incremental coordination towards shaping a more inclusive global critical minerals regime. Existing institutions are fragmented, mandates are limited and coordination across value chains is weak. The G7 is well positioned to elevate discussions about an international materials agency from a concept towards a political process, helping to shape a more coherent global framework. However, such an initiative can only succeed if it is developed in close cooperation with G20 members and key producer countries, ensuring legitimacy and shared ownership. Moving in this direction would mark important progress towards a more coordinated and effective global materials governance architecture.
The G7 has taken significant first steps in recognising the strategic importance of critical minerals. But resilient supply cannot be achieved through securitisation of supply alone. In an increasingly interconnected and resource-constrained world, resilience will depend on circularity, cooperation and inclusivity.
